HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2004 HF Org. Rankings (Part 2)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-29-2004, 01:06 AM
  #1
nyr5186
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Orleans
Country: Madagascar
Posts: 2,716
vCash: 500
2004 HF Org. Rankings (Part 2)

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/article.php?sid=7223

Guess which team is in the top 10!

nyr5186 is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 01:21 AM
  #2
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
Hell yeah baby!!

WE HAVE A FUTURE!!

Balej20* is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 01:23 AM
  #3
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
im curious to see the updated top 50 prospects list as well.

Balej20* is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 05:59 AM
  #4
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 32,977
vCash: 500
Remaining teams

Rangers
Montreal
Edmonton
Pittsburgh
Washington
Chicago
Nashville
Atlanta
Anaheim
Minnesota

In no order

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 07:49 AM
  #5
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
well lets try to guess the order!

0. Atlanta
9. Anaheim
8. Minnesota
7. Edmonton
6. Nashville
5. Pittsburgh
4. Montreal
3. Rangers
2. Chicago
1. Washington

in the hall is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 07:56 AM
  #6
Big Bill
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Land of milk & honey
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Big Bill Send a message via MSN to Big Bill
Almost the same as in the hall's list

10. Anaheim
9. Atlanta
8. Minnesota
7. Nashville
6. Edmonton
5. Rangers
4. Pittsburgh
3. Montreal
2. Chicago
1. Washington

Big Bill is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 08:07 AM
  #7
ECL
Very slippery slope
 
ECL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 81,435
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ECL
10. Anaheim
9. Atlanta
8. Minnesota
7. Edmonton
6. Nashville
5. Rangers
4. Montreal
3. Pittsburgh
2. Chicago
1. Washington

ECL is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 08:26 AM
  #8
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,805
vCash: 500
Not to rain on peoples' parade, but how can we go from one of the worst (last year) to one of the best (this year) so quicky?

True Blue is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 08:50 AM
  #9
Vito Andolini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Not to rain on peoples' parade, but how can we go from one of the worst (last year) to one of the best (this year) so quicky?
Because it was all part of Glen Sather's master plan.

- Phase 1 was to force the fans into apathy.
- Phase 2 was to help bolster other teams for their playoff runs
- Phase 3 is to watch our prospects developing in other leagues while the owners and players association enjoy a game of liars poker.
- And of course Phase 4 is to eat a pint of Ben and Jerry's delicious Chunky Monkey ice cream

Vito Andolini is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 08:51 AM
  #10
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Not to rain on peoples' parade, but how can we go from one of the worst (last year) to one of the best (this year) so quicky?
by trading all the value (which we had lots of) on our pro roster for top valued youngsters and picks which turned into top valued youngsters and have our current crop improve their value

so we added quality depth and developed quality all in this one year

Lundqvist, Prucha, Dawes, Murry, Lampman, Taylor are just some that have increased their stock since Sept '03

according to these rankings, we have already jumped 20 spots since last year that alone defies what you are saying

in the hall is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 09:42 AM
  #11
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by in the hall
according to these rankings, we have already jumped 20 spots since last year that alone defies what you are saying
Exactly my problem. It does not defy what I am saying, it only highlights it. Last year we were one of the more barren farm systems. Yet this year, we are jumping no less than 20 spots? And all of this without the so-called "superstar prospect"? Heck, Carolina has Vanek. Calgary has Phaneuf.

True Blue is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 10:20 AM
  #12
Guy Flaming
HFB Partner
 
Guy Flaming's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: TSN 1260 & Oil Kings
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,272
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Guy Flaming Send a message via Skype™ to Guy Flaming
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Exactly my problem. It does not defy what I am saying, it only highlights it. Last year we were one of the more barren farm systems. Yet this year, we are jumping no less than 20 spots? And all of this without the so-called "superstar prospect"? Heck, Carolina has Vanek. Calgary has Phaneuf.
When you acquire a handful of prospects at the deadline (Balej, Helminen, etc) and then have about 10 selections in the first 2-3 rounds... you're bound to add to your prospect corps and that's what this rankings looks at. To me it's a no brainer that the Rangers are top 10.

Buffalo has Vanek by the way.

Some would argue that Montoya is a blue chipper, as are Balej and Jessiman.

Guy Flaming is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 10:29 AM
  #13
sathershouldgo
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
They probably won't rank us higher then 8th. If we had a big center prospect we would be top 5. I think after next years draft we will be top 5. We have amazing depth in our system but we still lack that huge centerman unless somebody surprises.

 
Old
09-29-2004, 10:30 AM
  #14
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Exactly my problem. It does not defy what I am saying, it only highlights it. Last year we were one of the more barren farm systems. Yet this year, we are jumping no less than 20 spots? And all of this without the so-called "superstar prospect"? Heck, Carolina has Vanek. Calgary has Phaneuf.
I thought you were arguing that it the Rangers would not have a chance at being a top 5 or top 3 team. I disagree, look at the situation. We have as much depth if not more then any other team, while we don't have that stone cold superstar, we do have a few with that upside and that are considered blue chip prospects. The teams you named, for example Calgary, only has Phaneuf, there are no teams with the next Heatly-Kovalchuk combo still prospects. While we may not have any Kovalchuk's we do have multiple Frolovs if that makes any sense.

in the hall is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 10:31 AM
  #15
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sathershouldgo
They probably won't rank us higher then 8th. If we had a big center prospect we would be top 5. I think after next years draft we will be top 5. We have amazing depth in our system but we still lack that huge centerman unless somebody surprises.
Why do we need a huge centerman in order to be a top 5 team?

in the hall is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 10:39 AM
  #16
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Not to rain on peoples' parade, but how can we go from one of the worst (last year) to one of the best (this year) so quicky?
when you add 26 of the organizations top 40 prospects since last summer plus see major improvements/exceeding of expectations from lundqvist, prucha, dawes, baranka, etc you rocket up the rankings...while most teams add 5-7 players in the draft while losing 3-4 to graduation each year, we add 26 while losing 3-4 to graduation.

the difference in depth and talent in the organization between now and last year is mindboggling.

NYR469 is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 10:42 AM
  #17
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
Tb..

it's a combination of all that was added through the draft this past year (through the Rangers many picks in the top 60 or so), players acquired at the deadline (including Immonen, Kondratiev, Balej, Betts, and Helminen), and other players making positive strides (including Lundqvist, Tyutin and Lampman), coupled with other teams having players graduate (as the Rangers had few or none - can't name one off the top of my head aside from Ortmeyer) from prospect status, as well as trading away players and picks the last couple years because they're in a Cup run (the Rangers of course not being in that).

And TB...maybe no superstar, but there's a heck of a lot of depth out there, and a lot of it people think could be potentially good. I don't think the organizational listing is based on the quality of superstars, but overall quality and depth of the cupboard (although who knows, perhaps Montoya or Lundqvist become a superstar - maybe Balej turns into a 30 goal scorer - maybe Tyutin's a top pair defenseman going against top lines - maybe Jessiman ends up filling out his body further and becomes a monster - yeah, no Ovechkins, but not a bad bunch).

Fletch is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 01:55 PM
  #18
sathershouldgo
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
For starters our system was not completely barren last year. It was rated low by Ranger haters who had no clue on half our prospects. Ratings for Dawes, Prucha, Wiseman, Jonasen, were comical at best. We added 2 starters for sure in Kondratiev and Balej. Then we added Helminen and Immonen who are likely to be starters for our team. So figure in we got about 4 guys that probably will make the NHL and had 3 or 4 players that were rated completely wrong and you can see why we jumped.

We should have been about 20 to start the season last year. Then probably about 15 after the trades and our draft probably moved us up about 7 spots. People who question this sound more like Devil fans then Ranger fans. The Devil system which by the way should be ranked at least 20th or lower.

 
Old
09-29-2004, 02:09 PM
  #19
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
I wouldn't say they were a joke...

unfortunately when little is known about you you tend to be ranked near where you were drafted. Dawes was drafted in the fifth round, and in that year was not highly rated by HF's staff (last year). Why would HF's staff take a leap that many GMs were not willing to take? What, should he have been given a high ranking, something higher than the pros were not willing to do otherwise with his numbers he would've gone in the first or second round?

Wiseman was drafted in the 9th and I believe Prucha was too. They started low (and that's where the professionals ranked tham) and there's a lot of proving to be done to get out of that hole, as there always is.

Fletch is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 02:11 PM
  #20
sathershouldgo
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
"Why would HF's staff take a leap that many GMs were not willing to take"

You evaluate a player based on production. Many GM's were stupid on Dawes just like they were with St. Louis and Madden.

GM's get caught up in 6'3, 6'4 players forgetting that talent, smarts, heart and production is what makes a player

 
Old
09-29-2004, 02:14 PM
  #21
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,633
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sathershouldgo
"Why would HF's staff take a leap that many GMs were not willing to take"

You evaluate a player based on production. Many GM's were stupid on Dawes just like they were with St. Louis and Madden.

GM's get caught up in 6'3, 6'4 players forgetting that talent, smarts, heart and production is what makes a player
No, you evaluate a player on potential.

If a kid scores 50 goals in pee wee, does that mean he will become a 30 goal scorer in the NHL?

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 02:25 PM
  #22
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
Ok...

30 GMs were stupid as they had about 150 chances to pick Dawes but for some reason passed each time. While GMs and scouts aren't perfect, they are privy to a lot more information (including interviews with coaches, tapes of games, and collaborating information) than us. And they don't get it right, but there are a lot more guys in the NHL, I believe, who were drafted in the first couple rounds, than in latter rounds, so they're do often get it right. And size does matter. Scroll through the years of WHL, OHL and 'Q' of players who were high scorers but never made it to the NHL. Many of them just do not have the size (and often drive or skating ability, cheif among others) to make it to the NHL. I'll bring back my Don Biggs example - drafted 8th many years ago. In his year after being drafted he was on the same team as John MacLean. His point per game total was comparable to Mac's (a bit off), he was second on the team in scoring, and he had one more point than Johnny Mac in as many playoff games [and Mac was six months older]. Biggs played in 12 NHL games (he is also 5'8), despite leading several of his AHL teams in scoring. Why is that? I dunno, but it tells me you must look at something other than production. As SBOB pointed out, success at one level does not mean success at another. Size does matter.

Fletch is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 02:27 PM
  #23
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 14,213
vCash: 500
I remember it being widely believed that if Dawes was bigger, he would've been selected in the top 2 rounds. There is no way he was underestimated.

Put it this way: Of the two people with similar skill sets, who is more likely to succeed in the NHL? A 6'3" 220 lb player or a 5'8" 185 lb player? It's about potential+probability. There are absolutely exceptions to the formula. But they are rare. Dawes and Prucha both have the chance to be the rare exceptions.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 05:17 PM
  #24
Sunshine
Registered User
 
Sunshine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 499
vCash: 500
We have made the Top 10 Prospect List

We have finally been recognized - we are in the Top 10.

We may not have made the Top 10 for players with 1st/2nd line upside,
but there is no doubt in my mind that we have the BEST depth in the entire NHL.
The group we have right now will produce the most future NHL players.
For the past decade, we've lacked these role players.

Hold on tight, the Rangers will be a power again.

Sunshine is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 05:56 PM
  #25
NYRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
Heres the reason for the jump.

10 of our top 20 prospects are newly aquired since March. The ones we have had's stock kept rising, Prucha, Dawes, Tyutin, etc.

NYRangers is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:28 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.